David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Social Epistemology 21 (1):5 – 20 (2007)
In this paper we argue that the best way to explain the normative framework of science is to adopt a model inspired in the democratic characterization of a public sphere. This model assumes and develops some deliberative democratic principles about the inclusiveness of the concerned, the parity of the reasons and the general interest of the subjects. In contrast to both bargaining models and to power-inspired models of the scientific activities, the model of scientific public sphere proposes to account for the self-legislative capacity of science, the public nature of the scientific results and the epistemic virtues of scientific research in terms of the deliberative process carried out by individuals who are engaging in the public use of reason. This perspective provides new insights into the normative conditions of a democratic science.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Helen Longino (2002). The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton University Press.
Jürgen Habermas (1991). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society. The MIT Press.
Steve Fuller (2000). The Governance of Science: Ideology and the Future of the Open Society. Open University Press.
Philip Kitcher (2002). The Third Way: Reflections on Helen Longino's the Fate of Knowledge. Philosophy of Science 69 (4):549-559.
Jesús P. Zamora Bonilla (2002). Scientific Inference and the Pursuit of Fame: A Contractarian Approach. Philosophy of Science 69 (2):300-323.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Geneviève Souillac (2012). The Burden of Democracy: The Claims of Cultures, Public Culture, and Democratic Memory. Lexington Books.
David Randall (2011). The Prudential Public Sphere. Philosophy and Rhetoric 44 (3):205-226.
D. Ginev (2003). The Pluralistic Public Sphere From an Ontological Point of View. Critical Horizons 4 (1):75-97.
Anwar Tlili & Emily Dawson (2010). Mediating Science and Society in the EU and UK: From Information-Transmission to Deliberative Democracy? Minerva 48 (4):429-461.
Catriona McKenzie & Sarah Sorial (2011). The Limits of the Public Sphere: The Advocacy of Violence. Critical Horizons 12 (2):165-188.
Stephen F. Haller & James Gerrie (2007). The Role of Science in Public Policy: Higher Reason, or Reason for Hire? [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20 (2):139-165.
Asaf Bar-Tura (2010). Arendt, Habermas and Facebook: Participation and Discourse in Cyber Public Spheres. Humanities and Technology Review 29:1-25.
Codruţa Cuceu (2011). Milestones in the Critique of the Public Sphere: Dewey and Arendt. Journal for Communication and Culture 1 (2):99-110.
Noëlle McAfee (2008). Democracy and the Political Unconscious. Columbia University Press.
John S. Brady (2004). No Contest? Assessing the Agonistic Critiques of Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of the Public Sphere. Philosophy and Social Criticism 30 (3):331-354.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads23 ( #172,152 of 1,911,740 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #458,113 of 1,911,740 )
How can I increase my downloads?